I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the letter you wrote
to me on October 15, 2014, which is the only communication that I have
received from a Pitt chancellor in the past 17 years. It also may be
historic in that it could be the first time a Pitt chancellor has written
directly to an Oakland resident concerning problems in the community.
When we met at the Oakland Forever program on October 10, you said
that you never received my letters of September 2 and September 22
that I hand-delivered to your office, but that if I had delivered them,
I deserved a response. After delivering those letters to your office
once again on October 14, you fulfilled your promise. That level of
integrity has earned my deepest respect.

You suggested in your correspondence that a meeting with administrators
be held to discuss the information in my letters. On October 28 I met
with Chief of Staff Reynolds Clark, Vice Chancellor Paul Supowitz,
and Assistant Vice Chancellor John Wilds. They most likely have given
you a report, but I would like to briefly discuss that meeting and
subsequent events.

I began the meeting by distributing to each of them a list of eight
Community Objectives, with a copy to be given to you. After reading
the objectives, Mr. Supowitz stated that there was nothing new in these
objectives. This led me to believe that his subsequent remarks implying
the University was not going to change its position concerning the
objectives were fully formed beforehand. I did not comment on his remarks,
and merely corrected him regarding a letter to the editor he wrote
in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review which asserted that I relocated to
Hawaii a number of years ago and have not been a participant in the
Oakland experience. I informed Mr. Supowitz that for the past seven
years I had returned to Pittsburgh every other month to serve as a
caregiver for my mother. She passed away in March.

Mr. Wilds and Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Supowitz’s comments concerning
the objectives. In one of the objectives, I asked for the equivalent
of $50 of each student’s tuition fee to be given by the University
to the community. At the meeting I asked Mr. Wilds for the current
figure of direct funds given to the Oakland Planning and Development
Corporation by the University. Regrettably, the figure he gave is still
equivalent to less than one dollar of each student’s tuition fee, the
same amount as when our grassroots movement began seven years ago.

As an aside, it is incredible that you did not receive my correspondence
of September 4 and September 22, due to Mr. Clark’s interception of
the letters. When someone intentionally intercepts your mail or selectively
gives you information, it creates a negative environment that takes
away your power and ability to make decisions. I asked Mr. Clark if
Chancellor Mark Nordenberg received my communications during his time
at the University. Mr. Clark answered vaguely that he believed so,
but didn’t know if the Chancellor received all of them.

Mr. Clark said he spoke to you before the October 28 meeting concerning
his contention that there may not be much public support for our grassroots
movement. In the meeting he requested that I provide proof of the arbitrary
and absurd figure of 30,000 supporters. This did not come as a complete
surprise, as several years ago when he dismissed as meaningless and
irrelevant the support of 96 individuals, including Senators Jay Costa,
Wayne Fontana and Jim Ferlo for our SOUL initiative, an anti-litter
program, I realized that no number of supporters would be sufficient
for him.

He did say something very surprising. I asked him if he would want
a university to impact the community where he lives the way that the
University of Pittsburgh has impacted Oakland. He answered “yes,” which
is an answer that no other University administrator or member of the
Board of Trustees has done.

Mr. Clark continued by making a startling remark. He said some people
have told him that “Oakland would be another Hazelwood if it were not
for the University of Pittsburgh.” You will have to ask him if that
is also his belief.

He then made a very disturbing statement wherein he asserted the University
of Pittsburgh does not have to maintain the grassy area adjacent to
its parking lot in our Panther Hollow neighborhood. I was shocked that
he would intentionally make such a threatening remark, given the risks
of breaking an agreement that has been in existence for over three
decades, the risks of a lawsuit from the residents, and the full history
of the many agreements between the community and University concerning
this area. Without the residents support for that parking lot in our
neighborhood, the city of Pittsburgh would never had granted approval
for the construction of Mervis Hall at its present location which,
as you know, has housed the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business
since 1983.

Before the meeting ended I mentioned that the residents of Panther
Hollow were creating a neighborhood welcome sign and asked if the University
would be interested in funding that initiative. They agreed to do so.
Three days later, I provided each administrator by email a mockup of
the sign and the invoice from the sign company. The sign company requested
one-half payment ($1,642.98) before work began, which would be used
for permit fees and materials, and the balance due at the time of completion.
The response from Mr. Wilds was that payment would not be made until
the job was completed. My reply to him on November 7 was that this
is simply not acceptable. It is rude to the owner of the sign company,
and it is unreasonable considering the University’s available resources.
I replied that I would discuss the matter further if the University
would change its approach. There has been no response from any of the
administrators. Our community will seek support from others for this
initiative.

I also made known to them that our community has initiated a Joncaire
Street Beautification project with support from the city of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy and Oakland Planning and Development Corporation.
They agreed to provide some University funding, but mentioned no specific
amount. Mr. Clark said that Joncaire Street is heavily traveled and
it would be good publicity for the University to be involved. That
is not the kind of motivation our community needs for anyone to become
involved in this worthwhile project. This attitude of self-interest
is not exalted giving and can only lead to further problems.

Although the University of Pittsburgh has well over 10,000 administrators,
faculty and staff, I have come to realize that basically it is the
three men with whom I met who dictate to our community how we are to
live. I do not believe they should be in positions of power that can
impact the lives of thousands of people in our community. This letter
in no way intends to impugn on the character of these three men, but
I would prefer to meet with others at the University in discussing
the progress of the Joncaire Street Beautification project and other
issues.

In the meantime, the University can do its part for this beautification
project by repairing the broken sidewalks and curbs fronting its property
on Joncaire Street which extends from South Bouquet Street down to
the third telephone pole along the hillside. The University should
also remove the dead trees and weeds up to its property line, and not
30 feet short of it, as is currently being done now. The maintenance
workers for the University are excellent workers and well respected
by our community, but they can only do what they are ordered to do,
and that is why this entire property is not maintained.

Also, last year I requested the University use its sidewalk snow removal
equipment to remove the snow from beyond its property line down to
the bottom of Joncaire Street which would take only a few more minutes
by the maintenance worker. It would have offered greater assistance
to the city and created a much safer environment for the hundreds of
students, faculty and staff who park at the bottom of the street and
use this sidewalk to walk up to the University. Mr. Supowitz told the
reporter of The Pitt News, which did a story about this issue,
that he thought it was a good idea. However, he changed his mind and
the University continues to stop its snow removal at its property line.

The University can also begin to provide funding for this beautification
initiative. Mr. Clark mentioned that the University can provide funds
to the city of Pittsburgh to repair the curbing fronting the city’s
property and it should do so. The University can also provide funds
to the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy and the Oakland Planning and Development
Corporation Green Team. The beautification of Bates Street in Oakland
was kick-started by one person who travelled on this street and donated
$50,000. How much is the University willing to contribute for the beautification
of Joncaire Street which is heavily used by University personnel?

In addition to the above, instead of threatening to take away maintenance
services from the Panther Hollow community, the University can begin
to remove dead trees and weeds within its own property. The University
maintenance workers in our neighborhood are hard working and conscientious,
but again, they can only do what they are told.

The community of Oakland has been struggling with the University of
Pittsburgh for well over a half-century, beginning with the expansion
days of Chancellor Edward H. Litchfield and his successor Chancellor
Wesley V. Posvar. The University has received world-wide acclaim for
its achievements in education and research but at what price to the
community? South Bouquet Street, which had over 200 longtime residents
and twelve students during the service of these two Chancellors, today
has three longtime residents and over 700 students. Chancellor Mark
Nordenberg expanded the ownership of University buildings in our community
to approximately 100, raised $2 billion dollars for University capital
improvements, and increased tuition for some students by over $14,000.
Our grassroots movement began in 2007 by simply asking the University’s
support for an anti-litter program, a sum that is equivalent to four
dollars of a student’s tuition fee. Mr. Clark at that time refused
funding because he said the legislature was cutting back its support
to the University, and Mr. Wilds’ response was that we should start
a Neighborhood Improvement District. When you understand the full history
of Oakland, is that benevolent considering the magnitude of the University’s
impact upon our community?

I am optimistic about the future. There is a new paradigm emerging
for the community of Oakland. Although other longtime residents and
myself were not allowed to publicly speak last year at the open forums
pertaining to the search for a new chancellor, I believe you are a
part of that new paradigm. You are the right person at the right time
in our community’s history. The qualities that you have already exemplified
are ones that I feel confident your new administrators will share.
You have already shown that you are sensitive to the welfare of our
community.

Mayor William Peduto is also an integral part of the new paradigm,
and he too has shown great compassion and caring for our community.
There are voices emerging in Oakland organizations and in the media
that are becoming a part of this new beginning for the community of
Oakland.

I am always willing to meet or talk with you about issues concerning
this exceptional community.